- (1.) The entire gamut of dispute involved in this revisional application relates to the power of the Court to recall the witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the argument stage for production of the additional documents which could not be produced at the time of adducing evidence despite due diligence.
(2.) The facts which are more or less undisputed are adumbrated for the purpose of determination of the dispute as indicated above.
(3.) The opposite party no.1, the decree-holder, filed Ejectment Suit No. 170 of 1995 against the opposite party no.2, the judgment debtor, for eviction on the ground of default. The suit was, subsequently, decreed on compromise. The said decree was, thereafter, put into execution in default of the compliance by the opposite party no.2 which gave rise to the registration of the Ejectment Case No. 2 of 2009. Because of the resistance being put to the seal bailiff in executing the writ of possession, an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 4099 of 2009. The petitioner herein, thereafter, filed an application under Order 21 Rules 99 & 101 of the Code being Misc. Case No. 4485 of 2009 claiming independent right, title and interest in respect of a portion of the decreetal property. The evidence on the part of the Petitioner Company was completed in the month of December 2009 (As per the submissions of the respective Advocates) though the Trial Court recorded that it was completed on January 16, 2010. Admittedly, neither the decree-holder nor the judgment debtor adduced any evidence in the said proceeding on their behalf. The suit was, thereafter, posted for argument but no final decision has been taken in the said Misc. Case. On 24.06.2011, the petitioner filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code seeking an order to adduce additional evidence in support of the documents annexed thereto. According to the petitioner, those documents could not be produced at the time of adducing evidence despite due diligence and came to his knowledge and possession after the closure of the evidence. Another similar application was taken out on August 3, 2011 for production of the further documents which came in possession subsequently and has material bearing on the point in issue involved in the said Misc. Case.;